CMNT_TITLE_CAS

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Belarus (RATIFICATION: 1956)

The Government supplied the following information: the right to organize, including the right to establish trade unions, is guaranteed by the basic law of the country - the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus. The trade unions' rights are provided for in detail in the Law of the Republic of Belarus "on Trade Unions". The following principles of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are reflected in this Law: right to freely establish and join trade unions, subject to the rules of the organizations concerned; right to freely draw up and adopt their constitutions and rules, to define their structure, to elect their administrative bodies, to cease their activities.

The Law grants the trade unions wide powers to defend the rights and economic interests of workers of Belarus, secures their active participation in the life of the country and in the formulation of the Government's socio-economic policy.

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, relations between the state administrative bodies and employers' and workers' organizations are based on the principles of social partnership and cooperation.

There are various forms of the social partners' cooperation in the country, the most important among them being joint elaboration, adoption and implementation of the general tariff agreement, branch tariff agreements and local agreements, as well as collective agreements.

The General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and republic associations of employers and workers for 2001-03 was signed and entered into force on 25 May 2001.

Although the current collective agreement campaign has not yet been terminated, at present there are more than 600 agreements of all kinds already concluded, including 27 at the republic level and about 100 at the local level; there are also more than 20,000 collective agreements.

There is a National Labour and Social Council in the Republic, as well as branch and territorial councils, all of them are tripartite bodies in which the Government, employers' and workers' representatives are appointed in equal numbers.

The Belarus society's transition to market-economy realities is accompanied by radical transformation of social and economic conditions. The nature and content of relations between the trade unions and the Government and employers are also changing. Certain trade union rights and privileges can no longer be automatically secured, as in the past based on the former socialist legality or the Party directives. At present, the most important guarantee to ensure their implementation is collective agreements.

Realizing the need to create, in fact, new socio-economic legislation, as well as the difficulties of this task, the Belarus Government is open to dialogue with the social partners and the ILO for the joint search of optimal solutions.

In the course of improving the national legislation, and following the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies, the Government has prepared amendments to the legislation concerning registration - Presidential Decree No. 2.

It is proposed to repeal provisions requiring the confirmation of legal address in the course of registration of unions' branches which have no legal personality.

It is also proposed to enlarge the possibilities of acquiring legal address by organizations which have legal personality. Thus, if necessary, the organizational units of one trade union situated in the same city, for example, could all share the same premises and have the same legal address. An organizational unit in the same city could also have the same legal address as its mother organization or trade union.

In drafting the modifications to Decree No. 2, the Government took account of the Committee of Experts' comments on provisions concerning creation of independent trade unions in undertakings. In particular, it is proposed to delete the provision requiring a minimum number of trade union members to reach at least 10 per cent of all employees of the undertaking. Consequently, these modifications would allow the creation of trade unions in undertakings already where there are ten members.

The general rules governing collective labour relations in Belarus, including the settlement of collective labour disputes, are laid down by the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus which entered into force on 1 January 2000.

The Code provides for the creation at the initial stage of the conflict of a conciliation commission composed of the representatives of the parties concerned; the attainment of a quorum and the secret vote on declaring a strike; the advanced strike notification of the employer; the guarantee of minimum service during the strike; the prohibition to compel persons to take part in the strike or to abstain from it. The parties are free to make use of mediators or to take the case to the labour arbitration. The legislation of Belarus does not provide for a compulsory arbitration of disputes or for compulsory mobilization. The decision to declare a strike illegal is taken by the court.

In preparing the Labour Code the Government has taken into account the comments formulated by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the list of enterprises where strikes were prohibited, approved by the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, No. 158 of 28 March 1995, which, in the opinion of the supervisory bodies, was not in line with the strict definition of the vital services.

With the technical and advisory assistance of the International Labour Office new approaches were elaborated in the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus.

The Labour Code now limits the right to strike only to the extent that it is necessary in the interests of national security, public order, the health of the population, and the rights and liberties of other people.

In relation to the request of the Committee of Experts, the Government confirms its understanding that the provisions of the Labour Code to limit the right to strike (sections 388 and 393) should be used only in cases where the situations covered actually arise.

In the Government's opinion, the fact that the Labour Code contains certain provisions which have given rise to the comments by the Committee of Experts, could be explained in that the definition of the vital services is insufficiently developed in the Republic. This definition is open to different interpretations and has to be studied further with the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Government understands the need for constant improvement of the national legislation in the area of freedom of association and trade union rights.

The basis for the solution of the existing problems should be found in the enlargement of the dialogue with the social partners and the activation of the technical cooperation with the ILO.

Technical assistance of the ILO can become an additional factor to help effectively realize the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and other supervisory bodies.

In addition, before the Conference Committee, a Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour, stated that the Government of the Republic of Belarus considered matters of observance of the rights of workers, and the creation of necessary conditions for the free protection by workers of their rights as one of the priorities of its policy. The right to association, including association into trade unions, was guaranteed by the Constitution. The rights of trade unions were set out in greater detail in the law of the Republic of Belarus "on trade unions". This law directly reflected the principles of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 concerning voluntary creation of trade unions and their membership, the right to draft and approve their constitutions, to determine their structure, to elect executive committees, and to terminate their activities. The law gave broad authority to the trade unions in defending the rights and economic interests of the workers of Belarus, ensured their active participation in the life of the country and in the formation of socio-economic policy of the Government. In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, the relations in the social-labour sphere between the bodies of state administration, associations of employers and trade unions were conducted on the basis of principles of social partnership and cooperation of the parties. The example of such cooperation in the Republic was the work of the National Council for Labour and Social Matters, a tripartite body, where the Government, associations of employers and trade unions participated on an equal footing. The National Council considered the most important matters of socio-economic policy, the improvement of cooperation of social partners, and adopted decisions which afterwards were reflected in the collective agreements and other normative acts. During the meeting of the National Council on 24 May 2001, the disagreements concerning the Draft General Agreement between the Government of Belarus, all-republic associations of employers and trade unions for 2001-03 were resolved and, as a result, the Agreement was signed and had entered into force. The question concerning the proposed steps of the Government for complying with the recommendations of the Freedom of Association Committee, adopted by the Governing Body on 28 March 2001, were also considered at this meeting. Alongside other matters, the question of non-interference of state bodies in the activities of trade unions were discussed. The Minister of Justice had pointed out that the instruction referred to by the supervisory bodies of the ILO was not a normative act, did not have legal force and did not have any practical influence on the results of the trade union elections. The matters of independence of trade unions were covered in the current legislation (section 3 of the law on trade unions). The interaction of governing bodies, employers and trade unions in Belarus also occurred at the sectoral and territorial levels. In 2000 in Belarus there were more than 600 agreements of all types, including 27 all-republic and around 100 local ones, as well as 22,500 collective agreements, which covered more than 90 per cent of subjects of economic activity where trade union organizations existed. By now, even though the current collective agreements campaign had not been ended, there were more than 600 agreements of all types, including 27 all-republic and around 100 local ones, as well as more than 20,000 collective agreements. There were sectoral and territorial councils for labour and social matters, contributing to the development and improvement of the social partnership. The transition of the society of Belarus to the realities of the market economy was accompanied by the radical change in social and economic conditions that, in its turn, changed the forms of cooperation between social partners. The trade unions of Belarus ceased to be a part of the state machinery, as they were during the Soviet times. Trade union pluralism was strengthening. The workers were deciding for themselves in respect of their membership in the trade unions. New independent trade unions were emerging. Guided by the well-established principle of international practice, according to which the workers should by themselves freely choose the trade union which, in their opinion, better represented their professional interests, the Government of the Republic of Belarus neither supported nor prevented the efforts to change the trade union membership, undertaken within the framework of the law. In Belarus the nature and content of relationship between the trade unions and the Government and entrepreneurs was changing. A number of trade union privileges and benefits no longer could be automatically ensured on the basis of former socialist legality and directives of the Party. One of the most important foundations of ensuring them were the collective agreements and contracts, the conditions of which to a large extent depended on the aspirations and abilities of the parties to conduct constructive social dialogue, the mutual recognition of respect of interests of each other, the positive resolution of existing problems, and the ability to make mutual concessions and compromises in the name of this goal. In the opinion of the Government, the improvement of legislation on trade unions should go in this direction, taking into account that the legislative additions and changes should consider the spirit of the time, international experience and perspectives, and they should be well thought out and coordinated among all interested parties. It should be also taken into account that certain provisions of the existing legislation were borrowed from the previous system, because the respective matters had not previously been considered so important and did not cause special concern to the Government and social partners. This related, for example, to the very term "trade union", in which the term "citizens" was used, as well as to the matter of participants in strikes receiving material assistance from foreign legal entities and private individuals. He stated that in view of the complexity of creating local labour legislation based on the principles of a social-oriented market economy, the Government of the Republic of Belarus was open for dialogue with the social partners and the ILO in the joint search for optimum approaches. This matter required further consideration for the purpose of harmonization of the provisions of various legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus.

The speaker further stated that she wished to provide necessary clarifications concerning certain aspects of the legislation and to provide information on the measures which the Government intended to undertake in order to observe the existing comments by the Committee of Experts. A detailed report would be submitted to the Office within the time limits set forth for the submission of annual reports under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. The law on trade unions provided for the registration of trade unions, and the allocation to them of the rights of the legal entity. In connection with the adoption in the Republic of Belarus of new Civil Code and Housing Code the necessity had emerged to put in order the activities of all legal entities, including trade unions. This resulted in the adoption of Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 "On certain measures for putting in order the activities of political parties, trade unions, and other social associations". The Decree had approved the regulations on the state registration (re-registration) of political parties, trade unions and other social associations. These instruments prescribed precise requirements to be fulfilled by trade unions in order to obtain the rights for registration. The cases were specified when the registration of trade unions could be denied. Therefore, the bodies in charge of registration were deprived of the so-called "freedom of discretion" in the process of deciding whether to register or to deny the registration. The denial of registration could be challenged in the court proceedings. In respect of the comments by the Committee of Experts concerning the length and difficulty of the procedure of registration, the Government representative indicated that all trade unions had been registered in Belarus. The fact of non-registration related to first-level trade union organizations in enterprises, which were subordinated organizational structures (branches) of the all-republic trade unions. The major reason for non-registration was the question of the legal address. The compliance with other provisions of the prescribed registration procedure did not cause any practical difficulties. Decree No. 2 confirmed the necessity of mandatory state registration of the social associations, which were legal entities, including trade unions. The provisions of the Decree concerning the prohibition of the activities of non-registered social associations and those which had not been re-registered established an administrative liability for conducting activity on behalf of such associations. The dissolution of trade unions could be conducted only according to the procedure prescribed by the law, which provided for dissolution by court decision. The decision on dissolution could be also appealed. The Government representative stressed that these provisions of the Decree were not applied in practice, because they related to trade unions which, as was already indicated, were fully registered. The rules for registration prescribed by Decree No. 2 specified, as one of the required conditions, the confirmation by the trade union in the process of registration of information concerning the location of its executive committee, i.e. the possession of a legal address. The Government representative believed that this requirement did not contradict the provisions of Convention No. 87. It was known that this condition was normal for the legislation of many countries. It also corresponded to the provisions of the civil legislation of the Republic of Belarus. Referring to the facts of denial of registration of organizational structures of trade unions because of non-confirmation of the possession of a legal address, the Government representative stated that the organizational structures constituting the trade union, as a rule, were legal entities. The trade union independently adopted the decision whether its organizational structures, including the first-level trade union organizations, would be provided with the rights of the legal entity and be subject to registration as all legal entities in the Republic of Belarus, or whether they would not be provided with the rights of the legal entity. For organizational structures which were not legal entities, the legislation provided not for state registration, but for a more simplified procedure: inclusion into the registry. The absence of the status of legal entity did not limit the organizational structures of the trade unions in their basic trade union rights and rights in the area of collective labour relations, including the rights to conduct collective negotiations and conclude collective agreements. At the same time, the existing procedure provided for the confirmation of possession of the legal address both in the case of state registration and in the case of inclusion into the registry. As a rule, the first-level trade union organizations indicated their legal address to be the address of the premises given to them by the employer. However, the legislation of Belarus authorized the employer, but did not require him, to provide such premises. The question of allocating premises was negotiated between the employer and the trade unions on a voluntary basis. There were more than 28,000 organizational structures of trade unions in Belarus. With a few exceptions, all sought offices for their executive bodies exclusively in the premises of an enterprise. At the same time, it had to be taken into account that an employer could be short of such facilities, especially in small enterprises. The situation was aggravated by the fact that there were different organizational structures of trade unions at the same enterprise which claimed the premises. In order to resolve the problems related to the registration and inclusion into the registry of organizational structures of trade unions and taking into account the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, the Government had prepared amendments to the existing legislation on registration to Presidential Decree No. 2. These amendments provided for the removal of the need to confirm the possession of the legal address in the process of inclusion in the registry of the organizational structures which were not legal entities. It was also proposed to broaden significantly the possibilities of obtaining the legal address by the organizational structures which were legal entities. In case of necessity the organizational structures of the same trade union, for example, located in one city, could be located in the same premises at the same legal address, and, in case of location of the organizational structure in the same city as its superior organization, the address of the superior organization could also be used as the legal address for the lower-level organization. The Government believed that the insertion of these changes into the legislation on the registration essentially resolved the problem of the legal address. When drawing up amendments to Decree No. 2, the Government also had taken into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts related to the provisions regulating the creation of independent trade unions at enterprises. In accordance with the draft amendments, the provision on the requirement that an organization have at least 10 per cent of the workers in the enterprise in order to be created was abolished. The Government representative referred to the comments by the Committee of Experts concerning certain aspects of the legislation governing the issues of organization and conduct of strikes. The general rules of the regulation of collective labour relations in the Republic of Belarus, including the resolution of labour disputes, were defined by the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus which entered into force on 1 January 2000. In the opinion of the Government, the provisions of the Code governing the conduct of strikes took into account the interests of the parties of the labour relations as well as of the society as a whole. The Code provided for the creation at the initial stage of the collective labour dispute of a conciliatory commission consisting of the representatives of the parties to the dispute; the presence of a determined quorum of interested workers and secret voting on the issue of declaration of strike; advanced notification to the employer on the conduct of the strike; the provision in the course of the strike of a minimum service; the prohibition on the use of force to participate in the strike or not to participate in the strike. The parties by their agreement could use the intermediaries or go for arbitration and forced mobilization. The legislation of Belarus did not provide for compulsory arbitration. The decision to declare the strike as illegal was rendered by the court. In the process of drafting the Labour Code, the Government of the Republic of Belarus took into account the comments by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of the list of enterprises where the strikes were prohibited, approved by resolution No. 158 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 28 March 1995. In the opinion of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, this list did not correspond to the concept of essential services in the strict sense of this term. With the technical and consultative assistance of the ILO, new approaches had been elaborated which have been reflected in the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of the comments by the Committee of Experts concerning specific provisions of the Code, the Government representative indicated that paragraph 3 of section 388 of the Labour Code provided for the possibility of limiting the right to strike to the extent that it was necessary for the interests of national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other parties. In accordance with section 393 of the Code, in case of a real threat to the national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other persons, the President of the Republic had the right to postpone the conduct of the strike or suspend it, but not for more than three months. In the opinion of the Government, these provisions corresponded to the opinion of the Committee of Experts expressed in the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, according to which the measures prohibiting strikes "can be justified only in case of acute national crisis and for a limited period of time and to the extent that this corresponds to the circumstances of the situation". The Government representative underlined that up to the present time the provisions of sections 388 and 393 of the Labour Code had not been applied. In connection with the request of the Committee of Experts, the Government confirmed that the provisions of sections 388 and 393 concerning the limitation of the right to strike would be applied to those cases when the situations referred to in these provisions in fact occurred. Concerning the comments by the Committee of Experts in respect of the provisions of part 2 of section 388 that the strike may be conducted no later than three months after it was decided, the Government representative pointed out that this provision did not limit the length of the strike, but rather determined the time period when it should be started. The Government did not believe that the right of the President of the Republic to postpone the conduct of the strike for the period up to three months "could potentially convert into illegal any strike in connection with the existence of the limitation on time of its conduct". As was already indicated, the President could exercise his powers stipulated in article 393 of the Labour Code and postpone or suspend the strike in cases when its conduct created a real threat to the national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other persons. The Government representative stated that in that case no strike was considered, but those having the capacity of inducing a real threat to society might be the subject of justified restrictions or even prohibition. Section 392 of the Labour Code, establishing the duties of the parties during the strike, provided for the necessity of ensuring a minimum service during the strike. The Committee of Experts recommended that this provision be applied only to the enterprises in essential services. At the same time, in its General Survey, the Committee of Experts expressed the opinion that "it is undesirable or even impossible to try to compile the full and permanent list of such services". The legislation of Belarus does not establish a precise list of essential services. That is why the necessary minimum service was determined in the collective agreement in each enterprise. Depending on the importance of the enterprise, the level of necessary minimum services could be reduced to a minimum, or could be increased to a maximum, if the enterprise was indeed vitally important for society. Requirements to indicate the denotation of a strike while notifying an employer on the date of launching the strike, provided by section 390, was also related to the issues of determining the necessary minimum of services. The Government representative indicated also that in its General Survey of 1994, the Committee of Experts noted "... a non-essential service in the strict sense of the term may become essential if the strike affecting it exceeds a certain duration or extent ...". At the same time, the Government recognized that in the Republic the matters of determination of vitally important services was not sufficiently defined. This was evidenced by the comments of the Committee of Experts in respect of certain provisions of the Labour Code. The issue of vitally important services, as a rule, involved various interpretations and required further study. The question would be considered concerning the determination of the body adopting a final decision in case of non-agreement by the parties concerning the necessary minimum service.

In conclusion, the Government representative underlined that the Government recognized the necessity of permanent improvement of national legislation in the area of freedom of association and the rights of trade unions. The Government attached great significance to the programme of cooperation of the Republic with the ILO. It believed that an important place in this programme should be allocated to the matters related to the improvement of legislation in the area of freedom of association on the basis of international labour standards. The programme of cooperation could become, in the opinion of the Government, an additional factor contributing to the effective realization of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and other supervisory bodies of the ILO.

The Worker members recalled the reasons why Belarus was on the list of individual cases. These related to the content of the case; the nature of the observations of the Committee of Experts; the extent to which the Government had answered; the conclusions of this Committee in 1997; observations from the Belarusian social partners; observations from the other supervisory bodies; and recent developments. This case concerned violations of basic trade union rights in a country which still had a long way to go on the road to democracy. The lack of respect of democratic values and basic human rights had given rise to deep concern in other international bodies. The Worker members shared the views expressed in the report of the Committee of Experts and supported the recommendations made. These pertained to: registration policies which were tantamount to previous authorization; the restriction on the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing; the right to elect representatives in full freedom; and the right of trade unions to receive assistance, including material assistance, from international organizations of workers. In addition, a number of provisions of national legislation pertaining to the right to strike, including sections 388, 390 and 392 of the Labour Code, were incompatible with Convention No. 87. Moreover, section 393 of the Code permitted the President of the Republic to postpone, or to stop, a strike for up to three months; yet section 388 provided that a strike could not be carried out later than three months from the date upon which it had been declared. This was a real tragedy for workers. In this regard the Worker members wished to make a more general statement on the right to strike, as the Employer members had done during the discussion of the individual case concerning Ethiopia. They pointed out that in the days of the cold war, i.e. before 1989, the trade union leaders of the former USSR would more or less repeat what the Government delegates of the same regime had stated with regard to the ILO supervisory machinery. Today, however, there were union representatives from this part of the world who struggled to defend an independent position in union matters, who had great difficulties with their dictatorial governments at home and who spoke their mind in that regard before this Committee. So there was some progress after all and this was a most welcome and pleasant change. There were other changes also. The Employer members, for instance, embodied change. During the days of the cold war, the Worker members recalled that the spokesperson for the Employers' group had always stood with the Workers' group in that they had supported the Committee of Experts in its criticism on the violations of basic trade union rights in the former USSR. They had done so on the basis of careful analysis, conviction and trust in the ILO supervisory system in which the Committee of Experts played such a pivotal role. In those days, the Employer members did not have any serious problems with the right of trade union organizations to organize their own activities in full freedom, neither in countries belonging to the former USSR nor in other countries in the world. In fact, the Employer members were even more vehement than the Worker members on the enforcement of such worker rights. At that time, the Soviet Government delegate had often questioned the right of the Committee of Experts to interpret Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 as it had done and, more so, to apply these Conventions to countries where the workers and the farmers were in command. The Employer spokesperson stood very firm in those days in defending the Committee of Experts on the same points for which they were attacking it today. The Worker members pointed out that the legal and historical arguments raised by the Employer members today to negate the right to strike could have been used by them in the pre-1989 period. They did not. The argument the Employer members used today were the same arguments put forward by the Soviet regime to undermine the ILO supervisory system. Hence, the Worker members had no choice but to believe that the attack by the Employer members on the Committee of Experts was based on political rather than legal grounds. This stand smacked of opportunism, as politics often did.

The Committee was dealing with a case today where, once again, Article 3(a) of Convention No. 87 was at stake. Now, the Employer members were asserting that the Committee of Experts did not have the right to interpret Article 3(a) the way they had done during the cold war period. However, the Committee of Experts would continue to interpret Article 3(a) in this manner in the years to come. The position chosen by the Employer members undermined the supervisory system and it was opportunistic if one compared their pre-1989 and post-1989 attitudes. Hence, the Worker members could only conclude that the Employer members were ready to use double standards and that, if times changed again, the Employer members might change their position on this issue yet again. This attitude by the Employer members offered governments, which violated such an essential right of workers, a chance to continue to violate these rights backed by such an attitude. The Worker members were sure, however, that the Employer members and most governments did not want to reach a situation where the supervisory system was seriously undermined. Members of this Committee desired a supervisory system which was fair, had a sound legal basis and in the hands of experts who were not only intelligent but also independent, objective and impartial. The dialogue between this Committee and the Committee of Experts, as well as the Committee on Freedom of Association, should be continued. What was more curious was that the Employer members of the latter body had always supported the Committee of Experts' view on the right to strike. Hence, this dialogue and the ILO supervisory machinery which were creative, delicate and immensely precious should be preserved. The Worker members would not allow the Employer members to play games with it. The Worker members wished it to be placed on the record that they fully supported what the Committee of Experts had to say on Article 3(a) of Convention No. 87. Returning to the case before the Committee, the Worker members indicated that the violations of the Convention occurred in a country whose Government had not a great deal of sympathy for trade union and human rights. What was lacking in the report of the Committee of Experts, however, was information on the application in practice of the Convention. However, this information would soon be provided by other Worker members as well as by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Worker members indicated that they wished for such facts to be reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts so as to allow this Committee to obtain an overall view of the real situation. The report of the Committee of Experts and the written information provided by the Government might give the impression that the situation was improving. It was not. The Worker members would return to these specific violations later on in the discussion of the case. Findings of missions sent by the ILO in the last half year support this assessment of the Worker members.

The Employer members noted that this case had been the subject of discussion by this Committee in 1997 and the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for a number of years. With regard to the discussion in 1997, the scope had been extended. The Committee of Experts had raised more issues than it had done before. The new legislation and Presidential Decree were a clear violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Presidential Decree required trade unions and employers' organizations to re-register. This was not tantamount to a prohibition if the criteria for re-registration did not amount to the requirement for "previous authorization". Serious consequences could follow in the event that the legal address of an organization was not given. This was tantamount to the right of organizations to establish themselves only with prior authorization. However, in practice, there was little information concerning this. Moreover, the minimum membership requirement to the effect that an organization must have at least 10 per cent of the workers at the enterprise as members in order to be registered, could constitute a serious obstacle to the establishment of organizations. Since this Presidential Decree conferred excessive powers to the administrative authorities, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that the Decree needed to be amended. Although the Government representative had defended the trade union situation in her country and indicated that there were no violations of trade union rights, the Employer members nevertheless understood that she was prepared to consider possible amendments to current legislation. Furthermore, the law of 2000 which limited the right to organize to the citizens of the country was in violation of Convention No. 87 which guaranteed freedom of association to all workers without distinction whatsoever. Regarding the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom, this issue clearly was an internal union matter and any state interference therein was a clear violation of the Convention. Regarding the prohibition on financial assistance from foreign legal persons, this was a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the various restrictions on the right to strike, the Employer members recalled their clear position on this issue. Turning to the statement of the Worker members regarding the right to strike, the Employer members pointed out that this issue had never been raised by them during the cold war period. Rather, the Employer members had tried to ensure that the supervisory system was not undermined by ensuring that there were free and independent trade unions. The right to strike practically played no role in the discussions back then. They emphasized that they had not made a single statement during those days supporting the right to strike; in fact, they had never changed their position. In 1953, the Employer spokesperson expressed the group's opposition to this interpretation during the Governing Body. The Employer members recalled that they had asked for this issue to be put on the agenda of the Conference on several occasions but nothing had ever happened. This was probably because of the fears of the possible results of such a discussion. With regard to the views of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the right to strike, the Employer members recalled that this Committee had been set up as a conciliation, mediation and fact-finding body. It had no legal mandate but simply reported infringements in practice of freedom of association to the Governing Body. In this regard, the Employers pointed out that the Committee on Freedom of Association not only examined complaints from countries that had ratified Convention No. 87, but also from those countries that had not done so. In the latter case, the Committee on Freedom of Association received its mandate only from the general principles of the ILO's Constitution, not from Convention No. 87. Moreover, the Employer and Worker members in that body acted in their individual capacity and not as spokespersons for their groups.

The Worker member of France recalled that already in 1995, the Committee of Experts had recommended that the Government of Belarus instantly repeal the provisions which set excessive restrictions to the rights of workers to formulate a programme of action without the interference of the public authorities. This year, however, the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction that Order No. 158 of 1995, which was the basis of its comments, had been effectively repealed by the adoption of the new Labour Code. However, it would be worth questioning if matters had really changed in Belarus. On the occasion of the European Regional Meeting held in December 2000, the Workers' group had adopted a declaration in which it drew the attention of the Sixth European Regional Meeting on the serious violations of trade union rights in Belarus. That declaration was made in response to a complaint deposited by the trade unions of the country on the violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The documents attached to the complaint revealed the interference by the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions, and the restrictive procedures for their registration. The practices denounced by the trade unions did not seem to have stopped then. Thus, in March 2001, the Governing Body had approved the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association relating to Belarus. At the same time, the President of Belarus had signed a decree banning international assistance and solidarity. He indicated that the Government seemed to play hide-and-seek with the Organization; a step forward was immediately followed by a measure that cancelled its effect. Rightly so, the Committee of Experts had scrupulously examined the legal provisions, whether it was the Presidential Decree of 1998, or the adopted texts in 2000. He highlighted that freedom of association should be universally recognized as a basic right of workers at work. It was important to endorse the conclusions of the Committee of Experts, especially those relating to restrictions on the right to strike, namely: the right to strike constituted a means of pressure used by workers and their organizations to promote and defend their economic and social interests. In respect of the latter, considerable progress was noted in numerous countries which were part of the Soviet Union. He indicated that in the past, Employer members who were part of the majority within the Committee of Experts, defended the right to strike in those countries. He added that no new legal provision could justify that the situation be different at the present time. He was of the view that Belarus constituted an anachronistic, shocking, and unacceptable case.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation expressed his concern at the continuous violations in Belarus of Convention No. 87, including interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and measures to limit their rights. Russian trade unions fully agreed with the conclusions of the Committee of Experts in respect of the violations of Convention No. 87 because they maintained close connections with the trade unions of the neighbouring country and knew about the real situation. The trade unions of the Russian Federation, in cooperation with the trade unions of Belarus, conducted monitoring of the violations of trade union rights and cases of pressure on trade union officials in Belarus. Unfortunately, the violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 occurred more and more frequently in other countries of the CIS, including the Russian Federation, and this situation was frequently developing in the same manner as in Belarus. This issue was discussed at the International Forum on the Freedom of Association which took place in Moscow on 26-27 May 2001, where the representatives of almost all trade unions of the countries of the CIS took part. These violations consisted of legislative efforts to significantly reduce the rights of trade unions, pressure by the authorities in the process of election of trade union leaders, attempts to seize trade union property, numerous attacks against trade unions and their leaders in the media, more frequent cases of intimidation and even assaults against trade union leaders and activists. These developments were considered by Russian trade unions as a campaign against trade union rights. Russian trade unions, on numerous occasions, brought their position to the attention of all first officials of the Republic of Belarus, including during personal meetings. Russian trade unions also drew the attention of the leaders of the Russian State to the situation of trade union rights in Belarus asking them, taking into account the signing between the Russian Federation and Belarus of the agreement on the creation of a union, to render assistance for the resolution of this problem. The Worker member wished to once again remind the Belarusian authorities that it was not permitted to violate Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and asked them to urgently undertake necessary measures in order to rectify the situation. On their part, the Russian trade unions would continue to carefully watch over the development of the situation in the area of observance of trade union rights and freedom in Belarus and undertake necessary measures within their competence in order to give support to their fellow trade unionists in Belarus. Only the inclusion of a special paragraph in respect of Belarus could resolve the problem of trade union violations in this country.

The Worker member of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the Belarusian trade unions, asserted that, although the Government had declared that the situation, in respect of Convention No. 87, would improve very soon, in fact it had deteriorated. The President of the Republic of Belarus had signed two new decrees, Decree No. 8 in March 2001 and Decree No. 11 in May 2001. Decree No. 11 made it virtually impossible to hold any meetings or demonstrations. The smallest irregularity in conducting such meetings would lead to the imposition of high financial penalties on the organizers or the dissolution of the entire trade union organization. In addition, high payments for conducting such meetings or demonstrations were requested by the State. Decree No. 8 prohibited unions from receiving any form of international financial assistance without the agreement of the President's administration. Any violation of these provisions could lead to the dissolution of the trade union organization concerned. With these two additional decrees, the Government had enacted more legislation to allow for independent trade union organizations to be easily dissolved. The speaker then referred to a few examples of violations in practice of Convention No. 87. Until now, over 100 affiliates of the Congress of Independent Trade Unions had not been re-registered and newly founded trade union organizations could not be registered. The previous month, two trade union branches of independent organizations in Polodsk and Babruisk were prohibited from carrying out their activities. Membership fees were deducted from workers' salaries but not transferred to the trade unions in an attempt to put economic pressure on the latter. Last month, the authorities tried to install their representative as the head of the Minsk Trade Union Federation. By threatening workers with dismissal, employees of the Belarusian Metallurgical Plant and Integral Company were forced to leave their union and to join management-controlled company trade unions. Trade union leaders were refused access to enterprises where their members were working. The Belarusian trade unions did not trust the promise of the authorities that they wanted to normalize relations with the unions on the basis of social partnership and respect for ILO Conventions. The trade unions thought that Belarus deserved to be mentioned in a special paragraph. But, if this Committee took another decision, including the sending of a mission to the country, the unions would like the mission to demand that: Decrees Nos. 2, 8 and 11 would be repealed; legislation concerning labour disputes would be brought in line with Convention No. 87; state interference in trade union affairs would be stopped immediately and employees who had been dismissed because of trade union activities would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages.

The Worker member of Romania stressed that the situation in Belarus was serious and that the Committee of Experts had noted gross violations to freedom of association. In fact, Presidential Decree No. 2 was contrary to Article 2 of the Convention as it specified a long and complicated registration procedure for trade unions. Moreover, the relevant administrative authorities made bad usage of such a procedure. He added that the Labour Code authorized, in specific instances, legislative restrictions to the right to strike, and authorized the President of the Republic to delay, even to put an end to strikes, for a period of up to three months. Finally, he concluded that the instructions issued by the head of the presidential administration were contrary to the rights of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom.

The Worker member of Germany considered that the administrative regulations and practice in Belarus constituted systematic attempts by the Government to limit the freedom of trade unions. In fact, this had already been noted by the Worker members and other speakers, as well as by the Committee of Experts. In March 2001, the Government representative had informed the Governing Body that the Committee on Freedom of Association's conclusions and recommendations were constructive and would be implemented. However, subsequently, when the Belarus trade unions and the ICFTU held a meeting to discuss the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government authorities declined to allow the trade union to have any facilities for the meeting to take place. At the end of April, the Government instituted a new tactic in requiring the directors of state-owned enterprises to compel trade union members to leave their own unions and join those unions controlled by enterprise management. In sum, he had considerable doubts regarding the Government's intent to comply with the Convention, as he had seen no progress in this case to date and, during a visit of a German trade union to Belarus, discussions with the Government had been fruitless. Before further technical assistance would be provided, it would be necessary to see credible signals that the situation in Belarus was being brought into accordance with international law. Contrary to the position expressed by the Employer members regarding the right to strike, he considered this right to form an integral part of workers' fundamental rights. Otherwise, collective bargaining would become collective begging and it was necessary to equalize the balance and power between workers and employers. Referring to the written information submitted by the Government, it appeared that the Government was using the old Soviet Union concept of trade unions as its basis. It seemed that the Employer members were still attempting to use new arguments to support their position on the right to strike without following the comments made by the trade unions or the discussion in the Conference Committee. He recalled that, during the period of the cold war, the trade unions had played an essential part in restoring democracy and had not allowed themselves to be used as the tools of the employers. In the general discussion, the Employer members had stated that lip service was often paid to the market economy but, for the trade unions, the right to strike could not be separated from the market economy. He pointed out that, in Germany, while the right to strike was not expressly enshrined in the German Constitution, this right was nevertheless well established. He considered that attacks against the right to strike could serve as a pretext to compel workers to accept violations of international law.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway, drew the Conference Committee's attention to the serious violations of trade union rights in Belarus. He placed particular emphasis on the Government's interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and on the restrictive trade union registration provisions in the national legislation. In this regard, he stressed that none of the practices denounced by the Belarus trade unions had been stopped. They therefore asked the Government of Belarus to address this serious situation in a constructive manner to ensure full compliance with the provisions of Convention Nos. 87 and 98, both ratified by the Government of Belarus, and to fully respect freedom of association in law and practice. He called upon the Director-General to take, as soon as possible, all necessary measures to ensure the Government's compliance with the provisions of Convention Nos. 87 and 98 and to promote effective collective bargaining and social dialogue in the country.

The Government member of Germany noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts and the discussion in the Conference Committee were clear that the restrictions placed on trade union activities in Belarus constituted a violation of the Convention. While the written information submitted by the Government indicated that it intended to make changes to the legislation, he considered that, reading between the lines, the Government representative remained unconvinced of the need to effect changes to the national legislation, although she had also acknowledged that this situation currently existed in the country. Referring to sections 388, 390 and 393 of the Labour Code, he noted that his own country, Germany, also had restrictions on the right to strike in essential public services, a situation which was contrary to the comments of the Committee of Experts. He considered that, contrary to the position taken by the Employer members, the right to strike was an essential component of freedom of association, despite the fact that it was not expressly covered under Convention No. 87. Accordingly, it was the right of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee to address this issue, and the Committee should urge the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the national legislation that unacceptably limited trade union activities.

The Employer member of South Africa noted that, as the Committee's discussion demonstrated, there were many aspects in which Belarus failed to comply with the Convention. However, other issues had been raised in the discussion that were not undisputed. The Workers' spokesperson had questioned the authority of the Employers' spokesperson and in particular his stance on the Committee of Experts' view of the wide extent of the right to strike arising from Convention No. 87. He outlined the extensive and uncontested mandate for the Employers' spokesperson from the IOE members, the full employers' caucus and the Employer members of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. He also found it unfortunate that the inference was left in the air that the employers were somehow lesser custodians of core labour rights. This was not true. It was a matter of public record that in some countries, including his own, South Africa, the right to strike was enshrined in the Constitution. In others it was protected in national legislation. Employers did not contest this or try to overturn this. However, when Employers raised the issue as the Employers' spokesperson had done, then it was out of respect for the ILO's supervisory system which could be undermined if there was not a proper foundation for the wide interpretation and interpolations given by the Experts in this regard and which went beyond the scope of the Convention. Something that was wrong could not be said to be right merely because it happened to be convenient to some.

The Employer member of the United States hoped that the Worker members had not opened a Pandora's box in the Conference Committee. While the Worker members had accused the Employers of opportunism, he considered it opportunistic to level accusations at a group that, during the cold war, stood shoulder to shoulder with the Workers' group to support and defend the ILO supervisory machinery against attack. With regard to the Worker members' statements regarding the Employer members, he pointed out that, when Convention No. 87 was up for adoption, some members of the Workers' group had recommended that Convention No. 87 not be adopted because it did not mention the right to strike. With regard to the right to strike in Belarus, the Employers' position was accused of being a double standard, but he noted that the Worker members had on numerous occasions questioned interpretations of the Experts. He suggested that the Conference Committee should be seen in context as it existed, noting that it had the constitutional duty in the light of the Standing Orders of the Conference to examine the application of ratified Conventions. He pointed out that the Committee of Experts was a tool of the Conference Committee and it worked for the Conference Committee. In conclusion, he stressed that it should be clear that the Employers' group supported the position expressed by the Employer spokesperson.

A number of Employer members, including of France, Argentina and Panama, referred to the statement made by the Worker members in protest at the terms used and expressed their support for the Employer spokesperson, whose statements always represented the opinion of the Employer members as a whole.

The spokesperson for the Worker members said that in his initial statement he had not cast doubt on the fact that the statements of the spokesperson for the Employer members represented the group as a whole. He was glad that the Government of Russia had asked for the reproduction of the full text of his statement in the report. This would clarify the point beyond any doubt.

The Government representative of Belarus noted that she had listened carefully to the comments made by the members of the Conference Committee. With regard to the issue of union registration, she pointed out that all trade unions in Belarus passed through the registration process. In fact, less than 0.2 per cent of the organizational structures of trade unions in Belarus were non-registered. The Government believed that the requirement that trade unions confirm a legal address still posed an obstacle for this small number of the organizational structures of trade unions. She noted that a draft decree had been prepared in early 2001 to change the registration process. The Government representative recalled that, on 28 March 2001, the case of Belarus was examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and, at that time, the Government had expressed its willingness to comply with that Committee's recommendations and it had therefore decided to revise the draft decree. The draft, which would abolish the requirement that an organization have at least 10 per cent of the workers in the enterprise as members in order to be created, had already been submitted to the Presidential Administration when the Committee on Freedom of Association met in March. She also highlighted the fact that this was the first time that the Committee had discussed this case, although CFA Case No. 1849 had been brought against Belarus in 1995 relating to other aspects of legislation. Thanks to the technical assistance provided by the ILO, the Government had managed to comply with almost all of the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in that case. She also stressed that the observations of the Committee of Experts had been received by the Government only in March 2001. Nevertheless, the Government had already begun preparing amendments to the legislation. She recalled that the new general agreement had been signed on 25 May 2001. In conclusion, in reply to the characterization of trade union rights in Belarus as a "choking situation", she cited the statement of the Vice-Chairman of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, Mr. Vitco, that his opinion regarding the situation in Belarus had changed in light of the general status of trade union rights in the Commonwealth of Independent States since violations of trade union rights existed in all of these countries.

Another Government representative of Belarus expressed his gratitude to the Conference Committee for its patience and kindness. He nevertheless regretted that some of the workers, without having concrete information, had created confusion in the meeting. He stressed that the right to work was the most important right of all workers' rights. In Belarus, only 2.5 per cent of workers temporarily had no jobs. He therefore considered that, instead of levelling groundless accusations against Belarus, those Worker members would do better to pay attention to the plight of workers in their own countries. Moreover, 90 per cent of workers in Belarus were members of trade unions and he therefore did not understand what "grave" violations of the right to freedom of association those Worker members were referring to. He considered that trade unions in Belarus, especially trade union leaders, were not restricted in their trade union activities and enjoyed the fruits of international solidarity. While he welcomed the participation of workers in the discussion, he nevertheless wished that this participation be more constructive and not so openly confrontational and politicized, as he considered that such an approach was alien to trade union activity.

The Worker members stated that this was not a political debate but that it should follow the points raised by the Committee of Experts. Responding to the concluding remarks of the Government representative, they indicated that they would have preferred it if Mr. Vitco could have made the statement cited by the Government himself, as he was in fact present at the Conference Committee. Other members of the Federal Trade Union of Belarus were also present. Although the Government had declined to pay their fares, these had been paid by the ICFTU. However, regrettably, and for reasons he did not understand, the Worker delegate of Belarus had not been allowed to speak before the Committee. Regarding the statements made concerning the so-called empty accusations made by the Workers' group, the Worker members stated once again that the facts they had mentioned were based upon the reports of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as on the statements of their Worker colleagues, who had come to the Conference with relevant information. They therefore refused to accept that empty accusations had been made by the Workers' bench. While they respected the ingenuity of the arguments against the Experts' interpretations of the Convention made by the Employer members, they noted that Employer members had been repeating the same arguments for years, occasionally including some new elements. Therefore, the Worker members considered that they also could repeat their statements concerning their position on the right to strike, not because they were desiring to be original, but since they were concerned that an unfruitful opposition to the Experts' interpretations of Article 3(a) of the Convention as to the right to strike in the Employers' group was blocking the discussion of important issues in the case of Belarus, as well as many other cases. The Worker members considered that the argument made by the Employer members was similar to that made by former representatives of the Soviet Union in that the basic position taken by the Soviets prior to 1989 was that they refused to accept any interpretations by the Experts of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and to apply them to communist as well as developing countries, and therefore the Committee of Experts could not address this issue. They recalled that the challenges which had been made by the Soviets to the legal basis for the Committee of Experts constituted a clever legal argument because, strictly speaking, there was in fact no mentioning of the Committee in the Constitution and no legal basis for the Committee of Experts' functions. With regard to the right to strike, they recalled that strikes in Poland had led to the restoration of democracy in that country and that the Employer members had supported several special paragraphs in cases where the right to strike had been limited, particularly in the case of developing countries during the cold war. Whatever the legal position taken as regards the Committee on Freedom of Association, it was clear that no one in the supervisory system, including in the Committee on Freedom of Association, was there in their personal capacity. Finally, they clarified that they had never expressed doubt that the Employer spokesman spoke for all members of the Employers' group. The Worker members considered that the crux of the problem in this case was to protect the rights of workers in Belarus and they recalled that the Hungarian Worker member had kindly read the statements prepared by the Belarus workers' organizations. The Worker members therefore asked the Committee to appeal to the Government to end the violations of the right to organize, to end government interference in trade union activities and to urge the Government to prevent employer interference in these activities, as well as asking the Government to end the harassment of trade unions, to reinstate workers fired for engaging in trade union activities, and to repeal Decrees Nos. 8 and 11. They suggested that the Committee might consider sending a mission to Belarus but expressed their doubts whether such a mission would make a difference at this point, as three missions had been sent to the country in the last six months and nothing had come of it. One possibility was to send a modest mission composed of members from ACT/EMP and ACTRAV on an extended basis to pave the way for genuine tripartism and to promote social dialogue.

The Employer members, commenting on the case of Belarus' application of Convention No. 87, noted that no new points had been raised in the Conference Committee's discussions. They therefore recalled that numerous points had been raised in the report of the Committee of Experts regarding the incompatibility of Belarus' law and practice with the Convention. Accordingly, the Employer members demanded that the necessary changes be made. The Employer members disagreed with the Worker members' proposal that an extended mission be sent to Belarus since a mission had already been sent to Belarus half a year ago without any success. With regard to the statements made by the Worker member of Germany that the Employer members had introduced new arguments regarding the issue on the right to strike, the Employer members pointed out that they had been making the same arguments for many years. In fact, the minutes of the plenary session of 1994 contained all the important arguments and the Employer members had reiterated the most important of those arguments two days ago. Commenting on the mandate of the Committee of Experts, the Employer members noted that this had been addressed at the 8th International Labour Conference held in 1926, where the mandate of the Committee of Experts was set forth in detail. This mandate and the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts remained unchanged and absolutely clear. According to this mandate, the Committee of Experts had no judicial competence and no capacity to interpret the provisions of ILO Conventions. Responding to the statements made by the Government member of Germany that the right to strike could be addressed by the Committee of Experts despite the fact that it was not mentioned in the Convention, the Employer members recalled that the problem was not only that the Convention was silent on this issue but that it was purposely excluded from the scope of the Convention. On this point, the Employer members had made a proposal in the plenary session of the Conference on two occasions to request that this matter be placed on the agenda of the Conference, which was the only body empowered to adopt standards. Were this matter to be placed on the Conference agenda, the Workers might be surprised to discover how liberal the Employers could be on the issue of the right to strike and lockouts. They regretted that this would probably never take place.

The Worker members and the Employer members requested a special paragraph.

The Government representative of Belarus addressed the issue of the adoption of a special paragraph in the case of Belarus, noting that, in contrast to the majority of cases that had been discussed, the case of Belarus was being examined by the Committee for the first time. She asked the Conference Committee to take this fact into consideration as well as to consider the positive action taken by the Government of Belarus in cooperating with missions to the country and in establishing a constructive dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies regarding the draft amendments to the national legislation. She also drew the Conference Committee's attention to the statement made by the Government at the 280th Session of the Governing Body in March 2001, which expressed its willingness to comply with the recommendations approved by the Governing Body. In addition, she asked the Conference Committee to take into account the work carried out by the Government over the past two months to improve the relevant legislation, a task which the Government had begun even before receiving the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Government had been in constant dialogue with the Committee on Freedom of Association and had sent comments to that body on five occasions this year. She noted the existence of a positive trend in the development of social dialogue, indicating that a general agreement between the Government and the national employers' and workers' associations for 2001-03 had been signed on 25 May 2001. She therefore considered that it was not appropriate for the Committee to place its statement regarding Belarus in a special paragraph, in light of the short amount of time Belarus had had to respond to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and the positive trends she had described.

The Government member of the Russian Federation concurred with the statements of the Government representative of Belarus to the effect that it was not appropriate to place the Committee's conclusions in a special paragraph.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion which took place thereafter. It noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to a number of discrepancies between recently adopted legislation, various decrees and instructions and the provisions of the Convention, in particular as concerns the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing and the interference by the public authorities in trade union activities and the election of trade union representatives. The Committee expressed its grave concern at the issuance of instructions by the head of the presidential administration which called upon the ministers and chairs of government committees to interfere in the elections of branch trade unions and noted with regret the statements made before it that government interference in the internal affairs of trade unions continued. In this respect, the Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures to put an end to such interference so as to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are fully applied both in law and in practice. Noting the Government's statement that measures were being considered to amend Presidential deree No. 2 on some measures on the regulation of the activity of, among others, trade unions, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the necessary steps would be taken in the very near future so as to ensure fully the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee also requested the Government to ensure fully the right of these organizations to function without interference by the public authorities, including the right to receive foreign financial assistance for their activities. The Committee urged the Government to supply detailed information in the report requested by the Committee of Experts for its coming session and expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note next year that concrete progress had been made in this case. The Committee decided that its conclusions would be placed in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative of Belarus addressed the issue of the adoption of a special paragraph in the case of Belarus, noting that, in contrast to the majority of cases that had been discussed, the case of Belarus was being examined by the Committee for the first time. She asked the Conference Committee to take this fact into consideration as well as to consider the positive action taken by the Government of Belarus in cooperating with missions to the country and in establishing a constructive dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies regarding the draft amendments to the national legislation. She also drew the Conference Committee's attention to the statement made by the Government at the 280th Session of the Governing Body in March 2001, which expressed its willingness to comply with the recommendations approved by the Governing Body. In addition, she asked the Conference Committee to take into account the work carried out by the Government over the past two months to improve the relevant legislation, a task which the Government had begun even before receiving the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Government had been in constant dialogue with the Committee on Freedom of Association and had sent comments to that body on five occasions this year. She noted the existence of a positive trend in the development of social dialogue, indicating that a general agreement between the Government and the national employers' and workers' associations for 2001-03 had been signed on 25 May 2001. She therefore considered that it was not appropriate for the Committee to place its statement regarding Belarus in a special paragraph, in light of the short amount of time Belarus had had to respond to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and the positive trends she had described.

The Government member of the Russian Federation concurred with the statements of the Government representative of Belarus to the effect that it was not appropriate to place the Committee's conclusions in a special paragraph.